EVISA Print | Glossary on | Contact EVISA | Sitemap | Home   
Search
 Advanced search
The establishment of EVISA is funded by the EU through the Fifth Framework Programme (G7RT- CT- 2002- 05112).


Supporters of EVISA includes:
Home ›› About Speciation ›› Speciation News

Peer reviewing as a quality check - Criticism

(12.08.2024)

Peer review is a process of quality check, subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. It is a well-established process which has been a formal part of scientific communication for over 300 years. Despite its broad implementation, there is also a continuous discussion about its effectiveness.

It is generally accepted that peer review cannot completely eliminate cases of fraud and the publication of low-quality papers, but the points of criticism are much wider:.

  1. Bias and Subjectivity: Reviewers may bring personal biases into their assessments, which can influence their evaluation of the research. This bias can be based on the author's reputation, the institution they are affiliated with, or the research topic itself.
  2. Inconsistency: The quality of peer reviews can vary significantly. Some reviewers provide detailed, constructive feedback, while others might offer only superficial or overly critical comments. This inconsistency can affect the fairness of the review process.
  3. Slow Process: The peer review process can be time-consuming, often taking months or even years, which can delay the publication of important findings. This is particularly problematic in fast-moving fields where timely dissemination of research is crucial.
  4. Lack of Accountability: Traditional peer review is typically anonymous, which can lead to a lack of accountability. Reviewers may provide harsh or unconstructive feedback without facing any consequences.
  5. Gatekeeping and Conservatism: Peer review can sometimes act as a gatekeeping mechanism that resists innovative or unconventional ideas. Reviewers may favour established methodologies or perspectives, potentially stifling scientific progress.
  6. Peer Review Cartels: There are concerns about "reviewer cartels," where groups of researchers agree to review each other's work favourably, leading to a potential conflict of interest and undermining the integrity of the review process.
  7. Reviewer Expertise: Reviewers may not always have the necessary expertise to evaluate a paper thoroughly, especially in interdisciplinary fields. This can result in important aspects of the research being overlooked or misunderstood.
  8. Mental Health Impact: The peer review process can be stressful for authors, particularly when faced with harsh criticism or rejection. This stress can impact the mental health of researchers, especially early-career academics.
  9. Rejection of High-Impact Work: Historically, some groundbreaking research has been initially rejected through peer review due to its unconventional nature, only to be recognized later as significant. This highlights the risk of important research being dismissed early on.
  10. Lack of Transparency: The process often lacks transparency, with authors sometimes unclear about why their work was rejected or what specific issues were identified by the reviewers.
  11. Lack of Implementation: Some people also suspect that journals which claim to have implemented peer review actually carry out very superficial assessments, or none at all.

These criticisms have led to calls for reforms in the peer review system, such as open peer review (where reviewers' identities are known), post-publication review, and greater training and accountability for reviewers. Nevertheless, peer review continues to be favoured despite all the criticism because it has ultimately proved its worth and shown that in most cases it can help improve the quality of publications.



Related Studies

J. Rigby, D. Cox, K. Julian, Journal peer review: a bar or bridge? An analysis of a paper’s revision history and turnaround time, and the effect on citation, Scientometrics, 114 (2018) 1087–1105. DOI: 10.1007/s11192-017-2630-5
Rachel Bruce, Anthony Chauvin, Ludovic Trinquart, Philippe Ravaud, Isabelle Boutron, Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta analysis, BMC Medicine, 14 (2016) 85. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5
Jacalyn Kelly, Tara Sadeghieh, Khosrow Adeli, Peer review in scientific publications: benefits, critiques, & a survival guide, J. Int. Fed. Clin. Chem., 25/3 (2014) 227-242.  PMID: 27683470
Carole J. Lee, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, Blaise Cronin, Bias in Peer Review, J. Am. Soc. Info. Sci. Technol., 64/1 (2013) 2-17. DOI: 10.1002/asi.22784
John Bohannon, Who's Afraid of Peer Review?, Science, 342/6154 (2013) 60-65. DOI: 10.1126/science.342.6154.60 
Lutz Boernmann, Scientific Peer Review, Ann. Rev. Info Sci. Technol., 45/1 (2011) 197-245. DOI: 10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112
Richard Smith, Peer review: a flawed Process at the heart of science and journals, J.R. Soc. Med., 99/4 (2006) 178-182. DOI: 10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Arthur G. Bedeian, The Manuscript Review Process - The Proper Roles of Athors, Referees, and Editors, J. Managm. Inquiry, 12/4 (2003) 331-338. DOI: 10.1177/1056492603258974
A.C. Justice, M.K. Cho, M.A. Winker, J.A. Berlin, D. Rennie, Does masking author identity improve peer review quality: a randomised controlled trial. Peer Investigators, JAMA, 280 (1998) 240-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.280.3.240
Stephen Lock, Does Editorial Peer Review Work ?, Ann. Intern. Med., 121/1 (1994) 60-61. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-121-1-199407010-00012






Comments


Events
See the complete list of deadlines!
PittCon 2025
01.03.2025
Boston, Massachusetts
EWCPS 2025: 20th European Winter Conference on Plasma Spectrochemistry
02.03.2025
Berlin, Germany
DGMS 2025: 56. DGMS-Jahrestagung
04.03.2025
Göttingen, Germany
... more Events
News
What's new on EVISA's web site ?
X-ray absortption spectroscopy for speciation analysis
Health Risk Assessment of Complex Organoarsenic Species in Food
Liquid chromatography hyphenated with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (LC-ICP-OES) for speciation analysis
Ion chromatography hyphenated with inductively coupled plasma optical emission spectrometry (IC-ICP-OES) for the determination of inositol phosphates in food and feed
... more News




Imprint     Disclaimer

© 2003 - 2024 by European Virtual Institute for Speciation Analysis ( EVISA )